(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Yoma 81

YOMA 59-88 have been dedicated to the memory of the late Dr. Simcha Bekelnitzky (Simcha Gedalya ben Shraga Feibush) of Queens N.Y. by his wife and daughters. Well known in the community for his Chesed and Tzedakah, he will long be remembered.


QUESTION: The Gemara seeks a source to show that there is no Azharah ("Lo Ta'aseh") for transgressing the Isurim of Inuy during Tosefes Yom Kipur (such as eating during the "added time" of Yom Kipur, which one is supposed to add from the weekday to Yom Kipur at the beginning and end of the day). The Gemara says that it may be learned through a Kal v'Chomer from the Isur of Melachah. If, with regard to Melachah -- which is more severe, because it is prohibited not only on Yom Kipur but also on Shabbos and Yom Tov -- there is no Azharah for Melachah done during the time of Tosefes Yom Kipur, then certainly Inuy -- which is less severe because it is only prohibited on Yom Kipur and on no other days -- is not prohibited by an Azharah during Tosefes Yom Kipur.

How can the Gemara make such a Kal v'Chomer? The Gemara a few lines later says that *Inuy* is more severe than Melachah in one respect, because it is not "Hutar mi'Kelalo" (there is never an allowance to transgress the Isurim of Inuy), while Melachah is "Hutar mi'Kelalo" (for example, Melachah is allowed to be done in order to bring the Korbanos). If so, perhaps for that reason, Tosefes Inuy does have an Azharah, even though Tosefes Melachah does not! (TOSFOS YOM HA'KIPURIM and RASHASH)


(a) The RASHASH suggests that the fact that Inuy is not "Hutar mi'Kelalo" means that it is more severe with regard to having a more severe punishment and being a weightier Isur. However, when discussing *when* the Isur applies (in contrast to if there is an Isur altogether), the fact that it is prohibited *on fewer days* overrides the severity of not being "Hutar mi'Kelalo." As far as time is concerned (whether there is an Azharah for Inuy during the time of Tosefes Yom Kipur), the logic that Melachah applies on more days should certainly tell us that the Isur of Melachah should also apply for more of the day, such as during the time of Tosefes Yom Kipur.

(b) The KORBAN AHARON cited by the TOSFOS YOM HA'KIPURIM says that the source that there is no Azharah for Tosefes Inuy is not really a Kal v'Chomer. The Gemara is just comparing Inuy to Melachah, without making a real Kal v'Chomer. The Gemara's reasoning works as follows:

The Gemara concludes that the source for the Azharah of Inuy (that is, on Yom Kipur itself) is derived from a Gezeirah Shavah with Melachah, as Ravina says ("Etzem-Etzem"). Since the Azharah of Inuy is derived from Melachah, then there cannot be an Azharah of Tosefes Inuy if there is no such Azharah for Tosefes Melachah (as the Beraisa already proved).

QUESTION: The Gemara attempts to find the source for the Azharah for the prohibitions of the Inuyim on Yom Kipur. The Gemara suggests that the verse did not need to state the punishment for doing Melachah on Yom Kipur, because we would have learned the punishment from Inuy through a Kal v'Chomer. If the Torah tells us that Inuy is punishable with Kares, even though Inuy applies only on Yom Kipur and not on any other day, then certainly Melachah is punishable with Kares, for Melachah is more severe than Inuy because it applies every Shabbos and Yom Tov. Since the punishment mentioned for Melachah is not needed, we instead learn from there the Azharah for Inuy, says the Gemara.

How can the Gemara suggest that the *punishment* of Kares for Melachah is derived from this Kal v'Chomer? There is a rule that "Ein Onshin Min ha'Din" -- a Kal v'Chomer cannot be used to teach a punishment, even a punishment like Kares (Tosfos, Chulin 115b, and as implied by the Gemara in Makos 5b)! (SI'ACH YITZCHAK)


(a) TOSFOS YOM HA'KIPURIM answers that there is an opinion in Sanhedrin which says "Onshin Min ha'Din," we do use a Kal v'Chomer to teach a punishment for a certain transgression. Our Gemara is in accordance with that opinion.

(b) The SI'ACH YITZCHAK answers that the Gemara could actually have asked how will the opinion that maintains "Ein Onshin Min ha'Din" explain this Kal v'Chomer, but it had a better question to ask (that is, it asks that the Kal v'Chomer is incorrect, because Inuy is actually more severe than Melachah since it is not "Hutar mi'Kelalo").


QUESTION: Rav Papa learns that the Azharah for Inuy is derived from the fact that Yom Kipur is referred to as "Shabbos." Just like Shabbos consists of an Azharah and a punishment for its desecration, so, too, there is an Azharah and a punishment for transgressing the prohibition of Inuy on Yom Kipur.

According to Rav Papa, why do we need a verse to teach us the *punishment* of Kares for Inuy on Yom Kipur? Just like the Azharah is derived from the fact that Yom Kipur is called "Shabbos," so, too, the punishment should be derived from there as well!

Furthermore, we should learn from the fact that Yom Kipur is called "Shabbos" that the punishment for transgressing the Mitzvos of Yom Kipur is *Sekilah*, and not Kares, as the verse says! (This latter question is asked by the RASHASH.)

ANSWER: The second question answers the first. The reason the Torah needs to write the punishment for transgressing the prohibition of Inuy, and it cannot derive the punishment from the fact that Yom Kipur is called "Shabbos," is because the punishment is *different* than that of Shabbos! The Torah tells us that the punishment for Yom Kipur is Kares, while for Shabbos it is Sekilah. Had the Torah not written the punishment of Yom Kipur, we would have derived it from Shabbos and said that it was Sekilah. Therefore, the Torah had to write the punishment of Kares for Inuy.

(See Rashi, DH Hi Gufah, who says that Yom Kipur is like Shabbos "for both *its punishment and* its Azharah." Rashi must mean that although we *could have* compared Yom Kipur to Shabbos to learn the punishment, the verse then states explicitly what the punishment for Inuy on Yom Kipur is, implying that we should not learn the punishment (Sekilah) from Shabbos, but rather the punishment is only Kares.)

OPINIONS: The Gemara derives from the verses that one who eats and drinks on the ninth of Tishrei, the day before Yom Kipur, is considered as though he fasted both the ninth and the tenth. Why should eating on Erev Yom Kipur be considered like fasting?
(a) RASHI (DH Kol ha'Ochel) explains that by eating and drinking the day before one prepares himself for the fast. Since his eating and drinking on the ninth is in *preparation* for the fast of the tenth, his eating is considered to be a part of his later fasting. This is also the opinion of the ROSH (Yoma 8:22), and support can be found for it in the Yerushalmi.

(b) The SHIBOLEI HA'LEKET, quoting RABEINU YESHAYAH, says that after eating and drinking a lot on the day before the fast, fasting is much more difficult. Therefore one is rewarded for eating on the ninth as if he has lengthened his fast of the tenth. (Support for this understanding can be adduced from the Gemara in Ta'anis (26a) which says that fast-days are not established on Sundays, for it is too hard to fast after a day of festivity. -Pardes Yosef, Vayikra)

(c) The TUR (Orach Chayim 604) quotes the Midrash that tells the story of a simple Jew who outbid the king's officer to buy a fish on the day before Yom Kipur. The Jew later explained to the king that he wanted the fish "to celebrate that Hashem was going to pardon the sins of the Jewish people" the next day. From this it can be learned that eating on the day before Yom Kipur shows one's faith that the fast of the following day will earn us a complete pardon. RABEINU YONAH (Sha'arei Teshuvah 4:8) also suggests such an explanation.

(d) Since Yom Kipur is a Yom Tov, it requires a Se'udas Yom Tov, a festive meal. However, we cannot have a Se'udah on Yom Kippur because we are commanded to fast. The Se'udah, therefore, was moved to the ninth. Since the Se'udah of the ninth is part of the celebration of the tenth, by eating on the ninth it is considered as if one fasted on both the ninth and the tenth. (Rabeinu Yonah, Sha'arei Teshuvah 4:9)

(e) The ARUCH LA'NER (Rosh Hashanah 9a) suggests a novel approach. During the year, a person sins with his body and with his soul. By fasting on Yom Kipur, one afflicts his body in order to attain atonement for the sins that he did with his body against his soul. By eating on the day before Yom Kippur, one afflicts his soul in order to attain atonement for the sins that he did with his soul against his body (such as excessive fasting).

All of these reasons assume that eating on the ninth of Tishrei is related to the fast of atonement of the tenth of Tishrei, Yom Kipur. Consequently, it may be concluded that women are also obligated to eat on the ninth of Tishrei, even though it is time-dependent obligation from which women are normally exempt. Since women must fast on Yom Kipur, they are also required to do everything connected with that fast, including eating on the ninth. This is how the MAHARIL rules as cited by the DARCHEI MOSHE, Orach Chayim 604:1 (see also REBBI AKIVA EIGER, Teshuvos I:16, and K'SAV SOFER, Teshuvos OC 112).

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,